Just recently I was in a conversation with a number of UK mainlanders and we had a debate over what “tories” meant, apparently disproportionately ordinarily it refers to a political party and it’s not usual to use it as short for “territories” as I’ve used it (according to how the debate ended, it was half and half between them). And once again I’m reminded of how people feel to look back at their usage of a word/phrase over the years and cringe.
More tragically, me and a friend were embarrassed once upon realizing everyone was confusing “encephalitis” with “hydrocephalus” when talking to someone about their kid with hydrocephalus. Awkward because encephalitis is caused by HIV.
…discussions are discussions. They don’t need to lead somewhere for the discussion to happen, ie the discussion to be brought to the table.
You’re describing a conversation, not a discussion. A conversation can be had for no other purpose than to have it.
A discussion has an objective, a purpose. A discussion ended without achieving that purpose has been “tabled”: it has been left on the table, at least for the time being, while the participants divert attention to more pressing issues.
My purpose in this discussion is to convince you that “tabled” can be logically used in the manner I described. As you do not seem receptive to that concept, I’m going to table this discussion and continue with my day.
It does not need to become law, it does not need to be part of a contract for it to be discussed or brought to the table, aka tabled. You know to be brought under discussion or consideration.
You’re oddly adversarial about this, so cheers.